I am a weekend pilot looking at the SR20. I understand the extra speed and power of an SR22, but it is out of my price range and seems to be more aircraft than I need. Yet, I observe the numbers, and SR22’s seem to be more popular and SR20 owners seem to be moving up to SR22s. Is buying an SR20 a mistake? I once owned a new Piper Tomahawk when they first came out, and although it met my initial needs, it was obviously a stepping stone. Now, I look at the SR20 as a replacement for my current Archer II and as plenty of airplane well into the future. Am I missing something, or can I truly expect to enjoy an SR20 for recreational use and not outgrow it?
In reply to:
I am a weekend pilot looking at the SR20. I understand the extra speed and power of an SR22, but it is out of my price range and seems to be more aircraft than I need. Yet, I observe the numbers, and SR22’s seem to be more popular and SR20 owners seem to be moving up to SR22s. Is buying an SR20 a mistake? I once owned a new Piper Tomahawk when they first came out, and although it met my initial needs, it was obviously a stepping stone. Now, I look at the SR20 as a replacement for my current Archer II and as plenty of airplane well into the future. Am I missing something, or can I truly expect to enjoy an SR20 for recreational use and not outgrow it?
Personally, the SR20 meets my needs pretty well. IMHO, the main operational advantages of the -22 are as follows:
- slightly increased payload. Check the numbers of REAL planes rather than the numbers listed in the ads, and see if the -20 will work okay for you.
- much increased speed. You’ll have to decide whether the speed is worth the cost; that can only be answered by looking at your typical mission profile.
- much increased climb rate. Can be very useful, especially in mountainous areas. In flatlands, this advantage is not quite as valuable.
- ability to get de-ice. Again, depends on your mission profile.
For me the SR20 is fine, and while I certainly wouldn’t turn down a free new SR22, I don’t feel the need to upgrade. Of the above issues, de-ice would be the #1 reason for me to upgrade, and I personally can’t justify the extra cost of moving to a -22 PLUS adding deice. However, we each have our own cost/benefit analyses to make.
I’d suggest that you might want to consider joining COPA and looking through some of the discussion on the members forum…
In reply to:
Am I missing something, or can I truly expect to enjoy an SR20 for recreational use and not outgrow it?
Tim,
There’s no way for anyone to really answer that question – it’s a very personal thing. I’ve had my '20 for over 2 1/2 years, and now I’m getting ready to move to a '22.
Do I regret having owned the '20? NOT AT ALL. It’s been great.
Knowing what I know now, would I have been happier buying the '22 upfront? That’s harder to answer – but overall, I’d say not.
But it’s personal. I’m upgrading at least in part because I can, and I’m happy I waited because of all the extras that are now available on the '22 that weren’t when I took delivery of my '20 (which, by the way, stood right next to the very FIRST customer '22, Paul Traina’s, on the factory floor at delivery).
A lot also depends on your typical mission - you mentioned “recreational use”, but a lot depends on what you mean by that. Mountain flying? Winter flying? Is “on time mission completion” an important factor? Each YES to these (and probably a few more) questions is another check in favor of a '22 vs. a '20. But if you mean “mostly lowland flying, if and when I feel like it, and I don’t care if I have to scrub a few more missions”… you surely won’t go wrong with a '20… and, by the way, you’ll enjoy (as I have) fuel efficiencies such as make '22 owners twitch and drool, or at least start telling you about their “amazing climb rates”. [;)]
'20s also have some warts – they tend to run hotter, and so '20 pilots learn specific techniques to keep their engines cool, especially on summer climbouts. And they’re no more capable in the payload department than many other 4-seat singles. Actually, the '22 is not a lot different in that department, but you have more options in terms of compromising fuel for payload, simply because it carries (but needs!) a lot more fuel.
Oh yes… the '22 costs a bucket more money, too…
FWIW, when I bought my '20, I was sure it was the last airplane I’d ever buy. I was wrong. But so what? If life panned out differently for me, and I was “stuck” with my '20, believe me… I wouldn’t be crying.
Put differently – if there were a universal answer to this, we’d tell Cirrus, and they could simply get on with building just one airplane that everyone wanted! [:)]
- Mike.
i am one who is trying to move up to the 22. my reasons have to do with some mountain flying i am going to do. one thing not mentioned here is insurance. if you have less than 500TT and no 20 experience it is almost impossible to get insured in a 22. even then, the premiums for 22 cam be double that of a 20.
Tim,
I’m a big fan of the SR22 (I’m on my second one), and only have a few hours in an SR20. Of course, being unqualified to voice an opinion has never hindered me in the past, so here are some random thoughts about your question:
-
Both of the SR20s I’ve been in had a lot less engine vibration than the four or five SR22s I’ve flown. The vibration on most SR22s is not really bad, but most SR20s are very smooth.
-
If your mission doesn’t require IFR, have you looked at the new SRV? It’s a lot of plane for the money. It is the same airframe and engine as the SR20, without some of the avionics and IFR certification. It still has a PFD and MFD, though!
-
Have you considered buying a used SR20 or SR22? There are several quality used planes on the market (my old SR22 is one of them), and they are a real bargain compared to new planes. Unless you have to have that new airplane smell, it’s hard to financially justify buying a new airplane (or car or boat) when late model used ones are available.
-
If the plane fulfills your mission, you will most likely find that an SR20 or SR22, new or used, is the best plane you’ve ever flown. Period. I can say this with confidence because of the hundreds of happy Cirrus customers. There are a few unhappy ones, but they are definitely in the minority.
Several COPA members have switched to a Cirrus from a twin, and never regretted it. Especially when they pull up to the fuel pumps.
-
You’re probably tired of hearing about it, but many have said that the best thing about having a Cirrus is belonging to COPA. For 1/2 the price of a $100 hamburger, you can become a member for a year and judge for yourself. We have an agenda in trying to get you to join. We think that if you join and participate, it WILL make you a safer pilot, and that helps all of our insurance rates. You don’t have to own a Cirrus to join.
-
Don’t expect any sympathy for your dilemma from the folks around the airport. Most of them would love having to decide between an SR20 and an SR22 [:)].
Regards,
-Mike
Having a couple hundred hours in each of the SR20 and the SR22 (with the SR20 based in coastal CA), I don’t think that you’d be disappointed in the SR20. Unless you plan on crossing the Sierras, the mountains in CA are quite doable in the 20, albeit with a bit of patience. I had an early 20 for which cooling was a problem (I had to level off for cooling climbing out of BUR on an 85 degree day, to the minor irritation of SoCal) but I understand that the newer ones are better in this respect.
The SR20 will not do well in high-and-hot conditions, the main reason I moved up–it’s off the performance charts in Santa Fe above 20C, so this might be a consideration. (In comparison, for the SR22, density altitude simply isn’t a factor–I can go on the hottest days here without worry.)
As others have said, it’s a big chunk of change if you don’t use the performance.
Thanks, Mike, very thoughtful. To be more specific, I don’t have serious on-time requirements, and I won’t use the plane for business . My primary use, beyond just the fun of it, would be an occasional 1+ hour flight up to central California from the LA area from time to time to check on some property in Paso Robles. Biggest challenge is the occaisional moderate turbulence.
In reply to:
Actually, the '22 is not a lot different in that department, but you have more options in terms of compromising fuel for payload, simply because it carries (but needs!) a lot more fuel… Oh yes… the '22 costs a bucket more money, too…
Mike: That’s the good news, If you buy the '22, you no longer have to carry around that bucket full 'o money, so you have all that extra useful load for important things like handheld toys, avgas and luggage, and, er your family too!
In reply to:
My primary use, beyond just the fun of it, would be an occasional 1+ hour flight up to central California from the LA area from time to time to check on some property in Paso Robles. Biggest challenge is the occaisional moderate turbulence.
Tim,
There’s no question that the '22 would handle the California mountains easier than the '20… but we have a number of members with '20s in California, and they do just fine.
I don’t know your experience / background in general, or w.r.t. mountain flying in particular… but of course no matter which airplane you fly, you’d have to know and respect its particular limitations.
Regarding turbulence – this is one area where both the '20 and the '22 shine relative to most other singles, due to their relatively high wing loading. I recently had the opportunity to fly my airplane 'round the pattern on a bumpy day… then an Archer… then my airplane again. The difference was remarkable – what felt like “driving over cobbles” in my airplane felt like definite moderate turbulence in the Archer.
Finally… before you contemplate buying EITHER airplane ('20 or '22), I believe you’d find that a COPA membership will pay you back handsomely. For that matter, it pays no matter what you fly! That’s because our members are the smartest, handsomest, most beautiful, and often silliest bunch of people in aviation… and it shows. We’re also very modest, although we say it who shouldn’t. [;)]
- Mike.
When I had the 22 out in the LA area, I much appreciated the “extra” horsepower on those warmer and higher density days when I needed to deal with the hills around LA. I appreciated the 22’s climb rate (I was usually alone) and my ability to get high quickly. I’ve actually go absolutely zero time in the 20, so I can’t say at all how it would perform around LA, but the 22 was terrific with such density altitude/terrain issues.
Join COPA by the way, the info on the other side is well worth the modest investment.
Jeff
I have a 20 and I am based in Oxnard, Ca (Flat land) Going up to Central Ca (Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo) will be a piece of cake w/ a 20. The 20 can very easily handle that route or mission in a lot less time than an 172/Archer.
In reply to:
the premiums for 22 cam be double that of a 20
Isn’t that just largely a factor of insured hull value?
i guess JT would be best to answer this one. my point is that i am hearing a lot of 22 deals are not being done simply because pilots are unable to get insurance.
In reply to:
the premiums for 22 cam be double that of a 20
[auote]Isn’t that just largely a factor of insured hull value?
[/quote]
Logic and my miniscule math skills would dictate that if the purchase cost of a 'ww is 35%- 45% more and the insurance premiums are up to 100% more, then only a portion of the difference is due to hull value.
(Yes I understand that the hull portion of the premium is not the entire bill, but it is a big part, usually about 1.25% of the hull value.)
I have 215 hrs. in a 172 with an instrument rating. No SRxx time. AOPA quoted me $10,000/year for SR22 insurance.
Mike’s is a very good overall wrap-up of the situation, I think. (Including the exhortation to join COPA. There are several more detailed 20-v-22 threads underway there right now.)
To my mind, it’s largely a matter of how much the differential cost of the 22 matters in your particular circumstances. Apart from the ±$100,000 purchase-price difference, the insurance is more expensive, and so are the operating costs. In exchange for more money, you get faster speeds, much better climb rates, more capacity, and so on.
To me, the difference in cost is a big difference, so it outweighs the difference in utility that I’d get. I’d love to have a 22, but for the money I’m more than pleased with my nearly-three-year-old 20. For other people, based on their own financial and flying circumstances, the trade off works differently. Also, as Mike points out, there are really attractive options available in the used market – which was not the case two or three years ago.
So it’s a question only you can answer for yourself, based on your particular circumstances: are the undoubted advantages of the 22 worth the increased costs, in the “value equation” of your own life? Either way you can’t go wrong.